Posted
by
CmdrTacoon Thursday April 29, 2010 @08:41AM
from the they-deserve-worse dept.

Stoobalou writes "A Californian Playstation 3 user has filed the first class action lawsuit against Sony over removal of the 'Install Other OS' function from the Playstation 3. The action seeks to redress Sony's 'intentional disablement of the valuable functionalities originally advertised as available with the Sony Playstation 3 video game console.' The suit claims that the disablement breaches the sales contract between Sony and its customers and constitutes 'an unfair and deceptive business practice perpetrated on millions of unsuspecting customers.'"

You should also file a complaint at your own national consumer agency. I asked the store I bought my PS3 from to restore the Other OS function or offer a refund on the product because the ability was stated in the box. In this case the seller is breaking the law if such stated features are later removed.

They initially refused to offer a refund, so I filed a complaint to the consumer agency. It's important you try to talk with the seller first, and if both parties don't come into a good conclusion, then file a report. They contacted the seller, who then again contacted me and asked me to return the PS3 and they would give me a full refund.

I'm sure stores will first try to say that they cannot offer a refund and it's up to Sony, but if law states they are liable, just take it a bit further and you will get a refund. It will teach Sony a lesson too.

You know what lesson it will teach Sony and every other console maker? To make everything but the barebones ability to play games (that require no network connection) an option not included included with purchase of the base unit. Sure, they might offer free unlocks for some abilities but those won't be on or in the packaging of the console itself.

You say that as if its a bad thing...I would bet that the majority of gamers would rather have a less expensive console purely for gaming than the expensive swiss army knife consoles we have today....why do you think the Wii is absolutely crushing the PS3 and 360.

The Wii is, IMO, best described as a "party console". The games require little, if any, training time to "compete", and competing at the games is actually not the main point of playing. Playing is. Watching the others gyrate and try to hit some ball or whatever with the wiggly stick. It's not about precision, it's not about good timing, it's all about fun. And that fun doesn't come from "beating" a game, not even from beating the other gamers, the console actually takes a back seat when it com

I don't think you realize exactly what Sony did here. Back when they were fighting the war against HD-DVD, they loved these Linux sales. Every user who bought a PS3 for reasons besides playing games was listed on the headcount of active Bluray players, and therefore served their master plan to kill off their competitor though showing superior market share.

Now that said competitor is gone, they'd prefer not to sell to or support those users, and so they're just killing them off. Sony has finished with using them now and now is actively fucking them over. All of us who leaned toward buying a PS3 due the Linux feature have been intentionally played here.

Consumer agencies aren't bad, but a better group to focus on, at least in the U.S., are the state district attorneys. Most states have laws criminalizing bait-and-switch tactics. You don't get to sell a product claiming it can do functions X, Y, and Z then fix it so it can't do function Z long after you've been paid. Criminal charges would take the issue to a whole new level and could set a clear legal precedent that this kind of crap is unacceptable. State attorneys general, also, tend to be young, amb

Not far off the mark. I had two "leftovers" gift cards for BB once - one had like 5 bucks and change, one about 10 bucks.

Tried to put them both down for a game that was marked down on sale to $20. First they hassled me over using them on a sale item. Then they tried to say I could only use one gift card per item so I'd need to buy another item.

If it were coupons, maybe. But they were fucking GIFT CARDS. Worst Buy had already taken the ACTUAL MONEY that they represented, from the gift giver.

- $25 from the U.S. versus RCA, Sony, et cetera
- $75 from U.S. v. Paypal
- ~$4000 from U.S. v. Equinox (of course I actually gave them $10,000 so that was a bit of a loss)

And so on. I wonder what I'll get out of the PS3 class action deal?

If Sony plays it smart, all you will get is an offer to return your PS3 for a refund of your purchase price. So few people will actually follow through on the offer that it will be cheaper for Sony than settling and offering a cash payment for each PS3 owner.

national consumer agency? oh please. thats a toothless organisation for distracting idiots from taking proper legal action. i would assume. most agencies of that type are. class action those motherfuckers into honesty.

Did you notice that you were replying to an anecdote about the agency in question getting results?

ps. Another thing that pops to mind: Maybe you are from the USA, while not everybody else is?

Maybe, but who better to file a lawsuit than an American. They have taken the whole Damages and compensation to astronomical levels. If THAT doesn't scare Sony into honesty, they have balls of solid Carbon fibre wrapped titanium.

They've also taken the whole 'screwing with consumer rights' thing to astronomical levels. You can sue the crap out of Sony, but they might turn out to be allowed to take your immortal soul, first-born child, and Linux running functionality.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (http://www.accc.gov.au/) is great for smacking down organisations that try to rip off the consumer. Anyone can file a complaint with them about any corporation that is breaking the laws regarding competition, advertising, sales, customer relations, returns/exchanges/refund, etc, they will investigate and they will fine (can be quite large fines too) the company in question if the situation is not rectified (or the breach is big enough to warrant the fines even with a rectified situation).

The only thing they have been soft on (but appear to be acting on now) is the pricing of petrol which tends to get more expensive on Thursday->Saturdays and during holidays/long weekends and go down on the rest of the time and the apparent price collusion between the big oil companies to help maintain profits and drive independent petrol stations out of business.

You guys in the USA tend to reject any sort of government involvement in anything because you tend to only have regulations and laws which are biased towards the companies/corporations and give the consumers the short end of the stick. If you actually got some decent laws and regulations rather then the crap you get now, you probably wouldn't have caused a global recession.

Not the same thing.
Dell may no longer sell OS/2 on their new systems, but you bet your bottom dollar that if Dell did something to wipe out OS/2 on a still working system...or a closer analogy, break a useful feature of OS/2 on all running systems sold by dell, it would be grounds for a lawsuit.

IMHO, the question here is : did Dell *disable* OS/2 on your (probably old) machine that had been running OS/2 for quite a while already and at the time was sold as "runs OS/2" ?

Didn't think so.

Frankly I can think of quite few people (hobbyists, scientists,...) that went for a PS/3 *because* it is (probably!) one of the most accessible CELL-based machines around. Having it also do games is an added bonus, or vice versa. I'm not sure on how the DoJ will look upon this, but IMHO Sony did indeed steal functionality away from the user with their move.... few will mind, I'm sure 99% of PS/3 users never understood let alone used said functionality, but then again, it was there for everyone who bought a machine to use, and it was advertised as such too !! I remember at the time it surely helped their 'Hey Sony is playing the nice guy by allowing Linux on their new machine!'-image. First disappointment probably was the hyper-visor and the 3D Gfx not being accessible, and now this... I think it's sad.

>>>This comment makes me feel like your whole reasoning behind this was to "teach the store a lesson."

Given how many times consumers get screwed by corporations or mega-stores, I agree they need to be taught a lesson. The law is the law and applies to everyone, even corporations. I bought underwear that was supposed to be size medium, but actually had small inside. No big deal, but when I asked for an even exchange they said my receipt was past the 60-day return limit so "sorry we can't exchange sizes".

If your viewpoint I guess I should have just rolled-over and let myself be screwed.

Instead I contacted my credit card, told them what happened, and they reversed the charge on the basis of the merchant not fulfilling contractual obligations (selling the product advertised). So to the Grandparent poster I say: Bravo! You stood up for your rights and enforced the law as written - you wanted a PS3 + Third Party OS and they took that away from you. Perhaps if more of us did that, we wouldn't keep getting trampled underfoot by the likes of Goldman Sachs or the Congress.

Given how many times consumers get screwed by corporations or mega-stores, I agree they need to be taught a lesson.

Right, right, but what the fuck was the lesson?

CIA Superior: What did we learn, Palmer?
CIA Officer: I don't know, sir.
CIA Superior: I don't fuckin' know either. I guess we learned not to do it again.
CIA Officer: Yes, sir.
CIA Superior: I'm fucked if I know what we did.

Seriously, identify the next similar situation for me. I'd like to know how, as a vendor, you prevent something like this from happening. The way I see it, you have two options. 1) Stop selling, as I said in my OP, anything with a network interface. Or, 2) keep selling them because they sell ridiculous volumes and eat the cost when the company responsible puts you in a tough spot, since you're still filthy fucking rich from it.

I think you're all missing the point. The path the GP poster made was not necessarily to Best buy or whoever but to Sony. There's two scenarios:

1) You call the 1-800 Sony line and get Prakesh on the other line. For all you know he sympothizes with you but is powerless to do anything. He can't give you back Other OS, he can maybe apologize and bring it to management who proceeds to ROFL (yes, on the floor) and then scrap your complaint.

2) You take your purchase back to Best Buy: under law they are forced to return your price and then duke it out against Sony about the return charge.

Who do you think Sony listens to? Joe, who is upset with their firmware on the line, or Best Buy USA whose upper management is yelling at you because they got a surplus of PS3s that they've been forced to refund because of your shit decision?

>>>I'd like to know how, as a vendor, you prevent something like this from happening.

Isn't it obvious? When a customer comes into your store and says, "My PS3 no longer runs linux. I'd like a refund," don't push the customer out the door. He will simply call-in the Consumer Protection Agency and get you, the vendor, in trouble. That's the lesson.

...when I asked for an even exchange they said my receipt was past the 60-day return limit so "sorry we can't exchange sizes"....
Instead I contacted my credit card, told them what happened, and they reversed the charge on the basis of the merchant not fulfilling contractual obligations (selling the product advertised).

Can you tell us who the credit card issuer was, because I'd like to research switching a card to them. I'm curious what card issuer would have honored a request like that more than 60 day

>>>they can't "restore the Other OS function" any better than you can. What lesson are you trying to teach them?

(1) Obey the law even if you don't like it. (2) If enough merchants like Walmart, Kmart, Sears, et cetera lose money due to refunds on Sony's products, then THEY will sue Sony for damages causes to their businesses. And they have far more power than we do to make Sony hurt.

I haven't had any problems with Sony in many years. They have always lived up to my hope and expectation. Not once since I stop buying any products or services from them have they done me wrong. We have a much better relationship these days.

Even if it wasn't stated in the box, it was advertised that it did run Linux. Even people who doesn't need or care about this functionality should stay up to Sony on this. Next time they may remove a funcionality you do care about. Conceptually, it is the same thing as removing the capability of playing Bluray discs.

There is more to the PLAYSTATION®3 (PS3(TM)) computer entertainment system than you may have assumed. In addition to playing games, watching movies, listening to music, and viewing photos, you can use the PS3(TM) system to run the Linux operating system.

It may not be on the box, but it's certainly documented on Sony's own websites

Yes and my dad broke his arm at work. The lawyer official stated they admit no guilt and don't owe him a dime, but will happily pay to fix the arm plus lost wages. Sony's statement is the same deal - legalese - trying to protect their ass(ets).

Yes and my dad broke his arm at work. The lawyer official stated they admit no guilt and don't owe him a dime, but will happily pay to fix the arm plus lost wages. Sony's statement is the same deal - legalese - trying to protect their ass(ets).

I agree that's probably pretty standard to avoid opening one up to more legal action; as is requiring neither party to discuss the settlement.

I have an EE degree. What's a good 2nd degree? CMP ENG or Comp Sci? I want to be eligible to apply for more jobs.

I realize I'm responding to a sig but I'd suggest an MBA. Science / Tech undergrad plus MBA is a good combination.

I asked, and got told to FO. For the tiny amount of money involved it would waste much more of my time than the value that I'd get back from the refund. I'm finally starting to dislike Sony as much as most other Slashdotters. Previously I'd thought that the gaming division was pretty good even if the rest was run by morons.. but no longer.

Sony decided that they'd put asshattedry in a whole new category years ago. If it wasn't for Microsoft being there first, they'd be the undisputed champs.

It started in the 80s with the quality of their electronics going downhill while banking on their reputation to keep prices up, and then the "gouge their customer" disease spread like wildfire throughout the rest of their divisions.

Even if Sony comes out with a "good" product, I won't buy it due to their reputation in how they deal with their customers. I

Sony was a good company in 1995 when they first entered the gaming arena.They were still a good company in 2000 as well, although prone to exaggeration ("PS2 can do Toy Story in real time").But then they devolved. It happens.

- By the way I still haven't seen Final Fantasy 7 ported to the PS3.:-| I know that was just a demo, but it would be awesome to play that game again with FF12-style, fully-realized character graphics.

"We do understand the frustration a small number of consumers may feel at SCE's decision to provide an upgrade to the firmware to disable the Linux operating system but we refute any suggestion that this action is in any way a contravention of the terms of Sale of Goods Act,” SCE UK’s David Wilson told ThinkQ.

“The console packaging and the in-box manual for the console do not refer

I don't know much about US law, but I did study Swedish contract law which the EULA would fall under and generally such clauses are blatant violations of the law that states that contracts have to be balanced, generally they get away with them for services because if they change the terms you have the right to cancel the contract and get your money back, however for a device like the Playstation that would mean having to give a full refund as it no longer works as per the specifications it was bought for.

Citation? I've seen rulings in specific countries in the EU that say users can reject an EULA after a purchase and return the part of the purchase to which the EULA applies. I have not seen any ruling binding in the whole of the EU that makes EULA's non-binding.

In the US and EU, courts have found specific portions of EULAs to be unenforcable, but I haven't seen anything making them non-binding in general.

That's because you won't see any such citations. The whole "EULAs are unenforceable" is a false meme that constantly repeated on Slashdot. It's the same as the people who will talk about how ISPs are "common carriers" yet no such actual status for ISPs exist. The problem is that since these falsities have been repeated so many times that most Slashtards take them as fact.

I've read anyone in the states who bought their PS3 before March 28, 2010 when the lawsuit was filed and initially had the functionality is automatically part of the lawsuit. I don't know if that applies to me in Canada or not. I've also read that you may Opt-out of the lawsuit if you wish, I don't know how you do that.

Indeed that is. That said, you do need to notify the judge/court/something that you are a member of the class, and therefore entitled to compensation under any ruling (after all, the court can't know you're a PS3 owner unless you tell them).

That said, I *think* you are given some period *after* any ruling to send that notification.

You won't be laughing so hard if Sony "gets away with it". If they do you should expect to see every other major company start to pull this kind of crap after they've sold you a product promising A, B and C. They'll stop letting you use B. Then who'll be laughing.

Er, of course a contract can take your rights away. As long as doing so is not an illegal act.

It is routine to contract away legal remedies, for example. (E.g., all disputes will be handled by third party arbitration, or "damages are limited to replacement only.") Or to specify venue to someplace that favors the defendant.

While it is unusual, there are probably remote legal circumstances where "you must give us your children" might hold up.

I'm not a fan of class action lawsuits because they usually result in pennies for the consumer and millions for the attorneys. They're basically lawyer-enrichment actions.

For this suit to be any different, the best outcome would be to give Sony an option.

Restore the Linux implementation and purchase full page ads in the NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post advertising they have done so along with a mea culpa and a promise never to disable functionality again.

Refund the full purchase price to any purchaser who wishes to return the unit and purchase ads as above advertising the availability of the refund with a mea culpa.

Give the attorneys a few million for their time whichever choice Sony takes and the outcome will serve as a warning to companies that they can't put whatever they wish into EULAs because consumers will bite back.

Class Action lawsuits in this country are near pointless in terms of causing redress, and barely hurt the companies they're brought against. In a lot of bigger companies they're seen as a regular cost of business.As said in other posts, enjoy your coupon that ends up making you spend more money.

If you REALLY wanted to get redress, take sony to small claims court.$50-100 filing fee(75 in my state), you can get damages up to $5000, and you can make sony pay the court fee upon winning too.

They'll either start settling cases, or waste a lot more sending representation to win.So sue em for the cost a new PS3, since that's what it will take to restore you the original functionality that they took away ( one PS3 to play games and do PSN, one to run linux, since you can't do it on both anymore).

Sony's standard EULA states that if the machine1) didn't work,2) didn't do what the expensive advertisements said,3) electrocuted the immediate neighborhood,4) and in fact failed entirely to be inside the expensive box when you opened it,This was expressly, absolutely, implicitly and in no event the fault or responsibility of the manufacturer,

5) that the purchaser should consider himself lucky to be allowed to give his money to the manufacturer,6) that any attempt to treat what had just been paid for as the purchaser's own property would result in the attentions of serious men with menacing briefcases and very thin watches./cite{Good Omens}

They just added7) If the machine does work, we will break it the next time we want your money or feel like it.

It's also possible Sony will make every attempt to settle this out of court to prevent the court from definitively ruling on what a company may and may not put in a ToS/EULA. If a court ruled that when you buy hardware that REQUIRES software to run then you are buying the software as well there are going to be a lot of angry companies (E.G. Microsoft, Apple, Nintendo, etc...) out there whom will lose their easy way to shaft their customers.

Maybe those three companies haven't. There was that fiasco with the George Orwell books being automatically removed from kindles after the books were purchased. I know Amazon "had" to do it because of some licensing thing and they did eventually give refunds, but what should have happened is they should have stopped selling the books and anyone who had already bought it should have been able to keep it. (http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2009

I have the 60 GB model from Jan of 2008 and it is in my manual. This was a very widely publicized feature and it was the deal breaker for me. I was going to buy a Wii, but paid the extra $300 for the PS3 because of Linux. If you read the Lawsuit [archive.org] PDF it gives very concrete examples of how and when Sony and it's executives promoted about this feature. Balls in your court dumb-ass

My bet is he will lose.
Sony will find some loophole, the judge will allow it because the removal of this function affects a very small part of the userbase.

Car analogy time. My car comes with a spare tyre in the boot (trunk for you Yanks). Now most people will never have to use this. Most people are lucky enough to buy, use and then sell a car without ever having a flat or blowout. Now, if the car manufacturer decides during a scheduled service that they're going to remove the tyre from my boot (and the boots of everyone else that comes in for a service) then it will only affect a small part of their userbase, but it doesn't matter. The car was sold and marketed as having a spare tyre, and they can't just take that away.

World knowledge failure. It's not a legal requirement to carry one in Britain. So my analogy holds with certain pre-requisites. Also, stop being pedantic and accept that it's just an analogy. If it was completely congruous to the situation in question it woudn't be an analogy. Same deal with a shortcut, if it was easy it's just be the way. Bonus points to me for the Road trip reference.

My bet is he will lose.Sony will find some loophole, the judge will allow it because the removal of this function affects a very small part of the userbase.

Car analogy time. My car comes with a spare tyre in the boot (trunk for you Yanks).

One thing that I have hated about automotive manufacturers is that they are removing the spare tire from their vehicles... in a mis-guided attempt to improve fuel economy (it saves about.1 miles per gallon perhaps due to reduced weight) and to increase trunk space. Oh, they have something in there that can be used in "emergencies", but it isn't a spare tire any more. Commonly referred to as a "doughnut" in the USA, it is the emergency tire that is often smaller and certainly less reliable than standard t

Well hello there Mr. Obnoxious American. Now, as you may or (more likely) may not be aware, the English language was invented right here in little old Britain. We spell it tyre. You're entitled to mispell it as tire if you like, but every time you do we Brits have a quiet chuckle to ourselves, roll our eyes at our backwards cousins across the Pond and carry on in our usual dignified manner.

Well hello there Mr. Obnoxious American. Now, as you may or (more likely) may not be aware, the English language was invented right here in little old Britain. We spell it tyre. You're entitled to mispell it as tire if you like, but every time you do we Brits have a quiet chuckle to ourselves, roll our eyes at our backwards cousins across the Pond and carry on in our usual dignified manner.

I like to think of myself as a typical obnoxious American, and I found your post quiet amusing. Really put some color into my day.

No, tire is what happens when Brits are repeated subjected to Americans trying to correct British spelling into the peculiar bastardized American dialect. The poster even made it clear he was British, so there's no point criticising his correct spelling. And yes, before you get uppity, "criticising" can be spelt with an s. And yes, spelt is correct too.

There is a difference between a lense that wears out over time of usage (products that are being consumed, like with a non-rechargeble battery) and a car that simply works, but after service got it's backseat stripped. But hey, you can still drive the car, right? So what's the problem. Many people will never use teh backseat when they buy a car when they travel...

Human body update 568.3... since you have the potential to put non-edible things in your mouth we are disabling eating so that you may continue to breath our air service, you may chose to deny this update and continue eating but we will no longer allow you access to air... We're not forcing you to stop eating.. the choice is entirely yours. Have a nice day.

Ladies and gentlemen, May I present to you a prime example of Motron's Fork [wikipedia.org]

The choice is slightly different, though. Here we have "Lose Other OS functionality" or "Lose ability to use PSN and play any new games which require the firmware upgrade (you can bet that they all do)."

Regarding the modded down comment above about "hyperbole inherent in the freetard system" (nice butchery of Monty Python, cockfungus) My PC runs Linux, I game using WINE. A happy freetard is me!

Bullshit. You buy a PS3 and then a couple years later they tell you 'ok, now you have to choose between feature A not working and feature B not working'. If Sony is allowed to do this, then that also means it would be legal for them to start charging money for the features that the game consale originally came with and advertised as being free. Why don't they just make the next firmware update required a $50 payment every time you want to eject the current game disk? I mean as long as they let you know that's what it's doing before installing, there's nothing wrong with that, right?

You can't sell something that doesn't do what it's advertised as doing. And you can't sell something that's going to stop functioning at some future date without making that clear at the time of purchase.

If so, won't that mean that with Other OS gone, that enthusiasts will do their very best to crack that machine open any which way they can to enable homebrew, this time with the goal being full access?

Yes, and piracy advocates will come out with a piracy tool shortly after it is completely broken.